SA Magistrates Court - Who is Responsible for Performance of Prosecutors?

I tried to help an older man escape 40 years of domestic abuse only to have his spouse force him to make false stalking complaints so police would prevent contact as she was determined to keep his financial support for life, and keep up appearances. I was summonsed and the matter went to court.

However, as I had irrefutable documented proof that I was Not Guilty of anything, my lawyer ($2,000 retainer) believed the charges would be withdrawn immediately. she had contact with the Prosecutor. Not so. The Prosecutor immediately asked for an adjournment to read my lawyer's correspondence ($450 legal fees), so when she contacted my lawyer 3 weeks later, we believed she knew what had happened.

Instead without knowing my defence (and it turned out, without opening the Police brief) she advised Prosecutions' determination (withdrawal of charges - because I had pleaded Not Guilty, not because she knew the evidence - contingent on a groundless Intervention Order which ensured Prosecutions had another win, but which would prevent me ever working again).

When I would not consent, the games began - one adjournment after another to ramp up my legal fees and force my consent to the groundless IVO! I insisted on a trial, she cancelled it, emailing my lawyer (I have her email) that whilst my evidence proved the accusations false, the Magistrate had agreed I should have an IVO without grounds (something a Magistrate would never do) and because the alleged victim still wanted it?

I took the matter to 2 revocation hearings where the two Magistrates, having read the Police brief and my evidence, confirmed the required abuse was not present so there had been no grounds for the IVO. Both encourage me to pursue the Prosecutions' complaint and to that end agreed to my purchasing transcripts, believing the entire hearing was recorded, but the transcripts showed the entire discussion part of the hearings had been deleted, so the tapes ran for only 10 minutes each
instead of the full 30 minutes of the hearings, and there was nothing on tape to support me.

Eventually, I breached the conditions of the IVO to warn the alleged victim (himself a victim of abuse) that Police Prosecutions knew the accusations were false (he was so afraid of his spouse's threats of poverty, eviction and humiliation that he did whatever she wanted, and because she found out I had been in touch, he was forced to again make a false complaint - there had been no repercussions so far) and when the breach matter went to Court, the Prosecutor of the day read the Police brief, realised Prosecutions could not risk having me again expose them in front of yet another Magistrate for the Court record, so withdrew the allegation, no explanation was given.

There have now been 12 hearings, and I have proved the accusations false 4 times, but Prosecutions will never cancel the IO and remove me from Police records or my DNA from the Police Criminal Data Base as to do so would draw attention to their long-term routine abuse of process. As a result of Prosecutions' long-term abuse of process over a number of Magistrates Courts, 7,000+ IVOs have been granted in South Australia since the Prevention of Abuse (Intervention Orders) Act 2009 became law, obviously many on false accusations by alleged victims who have exploited Police procedures at Station level, followed by the routine abuse of process by Prosecutors in the respective Magistrates Courts.

The victims of false accusations have been punished, and the alleged victims who lied continually have got off when they should have been charged with making false statements (2 years gaol max.) and false Affidavits (14 years gaol).

My question is, who is responsible for the performance of Prosecutors on matters of Intervention Order in Magistrates Court? It seems that no-one is.

I complained to the Police Commissioner but was told that complaints against Police are handled by the Police Complaints Authority (now Office of Police Ombudsman), but they are totally hopeless, pruning off 2/3 of complaints without reading them. They used to provide "determinations" regardless and denied reviews, not they claim that not enough evidence has been provided, but how would they know that when they don't even read the complaints before pruning them off?

 

It's a long story and I had to leave some things out, but this may help fill the gaps. I am a 72 year old woman who was 68 at the time the false complaints started. My alleged victim is a very timid man of the same age who had suffered such debilitating child abuse he had no ability to stand up for himself.

He then suffered schoolyard bullying, employer exploitation and 40 years of domestic manipulation from a woman who had no employable skills and was determined to prevent him leaving to keep his financial support and keep up appearances. His situation is very common in his age group. I know that because I was a financial planner and saw it regularly with clients about to retire. He was my employer, and we became close, but no affair although he wanted a future with me (he had never lived alone). He was not a meal ticket to me.

When at retirement he approached his spouse for the divorce she had threatened for decades, he was unaware it was all bluff, as a divorce was the last thing she wanted. He was so terrified of the threats his spouse had continually made (eviction, poverty and humiliation as a worthless piece of s**t - the house was in her name) that he did as she ordered and, with pressure from her and his avaricious son, instantly dismissed me, fabricating 15 false accusations of business misconduct to do so, unaware he would cost me my professional career and make me unemployable.

When I wrote and told him what he had done he had 2 breakdowns and was very ill for months. I also had a breakdown. When I later had to approach him for referee support (he had continued to show he welcomed contact and I knew my dismissal had been forced on him), he was so scared his spouse would find out and take everything, he told the Police he was being stalked so they would warn me not to contact him. (Implausible but true.)

The Police knew the accusations were false as I disproved them immediately with documentation, but they could do nothing as investigating the integrity of a complaint is the Prosecutor's responsibility (they must have proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to apply for an IO - except they don't). His spouse then forced him to make two more false complaints which put me in Court where I became a victim (I hate that word) of Prosecutions' long term abuse of process on matters of abuse. I was actually warned about Prosecutions by the first lawyer I approached.

He said I was "naive" if I thought having documented proof of innocence meant I would clear my name. His advice was "save your money, plead guilty, accept a conviction and move on with your life" - as it turned out, excellent advice although I could not take it as an IO would mean I would never work again.

The Police Ombudsman's office is overloaded with work and at the time I complained about the Prosecutor's abuse of process they were pruning off 2/3 of the complaints without reading them, yet still providing "determinations". When I sought a review, still without asking any questions or reading anything, they claimed my complaint was not worth investigation! Churning out "results" was a matter of getting runs on the board, I believe, as this is a new department established when the Premier at the time had claimed there was no need for a Police Complaints Authority.

The department was set up to fail, with only 2 investigations officers, and a female CEO to take the blame when the department failed. Advising "determinations" while investigating nothing has kept the department afloat! In fact all the departments I approached did the same thing. When I could get none of them to actually find out what happened before advising their "determinations" I then approached the Police Station where the complaints were made, only to be verbally attacked by the acting Police Operations Manager (a female) who claimed a Prosecutor would never not follow procedure!! And she truly believed that! How naive can Police be?

Whilst I can no longer help this man (his spouse now drives him to and from golf - his only time apart from her - in case we have contact), my failure to help him escape such a shocking life is with me on a daily basis, given he relied so desperately on my help, and continued to show he wanted contact to continue as recently as 2015. Many older men are in this position - they have been intimidated and tightly controlled by their long term spouses throughout their marriages to prevent them leaving and keep up appearances.

In fact, one in three men are known to be abused in relationships and it is almost always about financial support and to keep up appearances. What is frightening is that what happens in South Australia is likely to be the case in all States, as SA tends to follow other States in procedural matters. If 7,000+ IOs have been granted in SA since 2009, then close to 50,000 IOs could have been granted (mostly against men and on dubious grounds) around Australia since approx. 2009 when most States enacted new legislation to combat domestic abuse.

I have sought to have my name cleared for two reasons. I was the victim of false complaints which I could prove with documentation, and would have cleared my name immediately had the Prosecutor followed procedure (at the time I needed to do so to get Government contracts, my only source of income after losing my career), and because thousands of decent men have been railroaded by these female Prosecutors.

The only way these victims of Prosecutions' abuse of process can get justice is for there to be an investigation, which requires someone to be able to prove everything with documentation. I have that documentation. I have kept a complete record of what was done to me and my disgusted lawyer handed me her firm's client file (so I had her correspondence with the Prosecutor) to pursue justice without further legal cost. Two legal firms in SA have also made comment which proves my experience is their common experience.

I am in a position to expose this long term abuse of process so that those men who were victims of false accusations by vindictive partners can have their situations reviewed, IOs cancelled and compensation paid for being defamed by Prosecutors putting them on Police records for life on no grounds whatsoever, with their DNA on the Police Criminal Data Base.

Hope this answers any questions you have.

 

Thank you, Lance. I am a long way from giving up. I have sent my information to the Miscarriages of Justice Unit at Flinders University, in case they can do something, bearing in mind the huge number of groundless IOs it appears has been issued.

 

Thank you. One legal firm advised me to go to the media, but who? I approached Channel 9 whose response was that I would be made to look like a marriage wrecker, so they wouldn't touch it. However, clearly the person who made that comment had read very little of what I had provided, so did not get to what happens in the Magistrates Court before backing off.

 

A Current Affair did a segment on Violent Women who attack men, and Sunday Night did a segment on the shortcomings of Police and the Court System in relation to the conviction for murder of Henry Keogh on forensic evidence that did not exist. He spent, I believe, 20 years in gaol. These would be the 2 TV stations/programs to approach. I am taking my complaint to both shortly in the hope male reporters will be so incensed at what is afterall sex discrimination by Police Prosecutors in that they focus on putting mainly men on Police records on no grounds and their DNA on the Police Criminal Data Base, that they will want the story told. Recently, also, the Sunday Mail here in Adelaide reported a situation which was the same as mine - despite a plea of Not Guilty and therefore Prosecutions knowing the complaints of abuse could well be false - Police Prosecutors kept the matter in Court for 6 months (this had to be one adjournment after another, designed to hike up legal costs until the alleged offender can no longer pay their lawyer and has to consent to what Prosecutions want - a groundless IO). The alleged offender, however, did not give in and was awarded costs of just a thousand dollars or so against Prosecutions, when thanks to the Prosecutor his legal costs would have been thousands more. So, even if Prosecutions lose, the alleged offender faces possible financial ruin due to the legal costs of a prolonged stay in Court. Be aware of that.